With the Jewish people’s return to the Land of Israel, the question of the Halakhic status
of Har HaBayit — the plot of land where the Temple once stood in
Jerusalem – became a hot topic. Does it still have the unique sanctity that it acquired when Solomon
consecrated the First Temple? Does a person who enters the area of the Temple courtyard (the azarah)
while ritually impure (tamei) transgress a serious offence,
incurring the penalty of karet?1

Or did the Temple Mount lose its special status after the Temple’s destruction?

This issue was the subject of a major dispute some 900 years ago. Maimonides noted
that the status of Har HaBayit is not connected to the
question about whether the Land of Israel in general retained its sanctity
after the first exile to Babylonia. The sanctity of the place of the Temple is based on a unique source — the
Divine Presence in that location – and that, Maimonides argued, has not changed. “The
Shekhinah can never be nullified.”2

Maimonides buttressed his position by quoting the Mishnah in Megillah 3:4: “Even when [your sanctuaries]
are in ruins, their holiness remains.

However, Maimonides’ famous adversary, Rabbi Abraham ben David (Ra’avad), disagreed vehemently.
This ruling, Ra’avad wrote, is Maimonides’ own opinion; it is not based on the rulings
of the Talmud. After the Temple’s destruction, the Temple Mount no longer retains its special sanctity.
A ritually-impure individual who enters the place of the Temple courtyard in our days does
not incur the penalty of karet.

Rav Kook noted that even Ra’avad agrees that it is forbidden nowadays to enter the Temple area
while impure.
It is not, however, the serious offence that it was when the Temple stood.3

What is the source of this disagreement?

Like a Tallit or Like Tefillin?

In Halakhah there are two paradigms for physical objects that contain holiness.
The lower level is called tashmishmitzvah. These are objects like a garment
used for a Tallit, a ram’s horn used for a Shofar, or a palm branch used for a
Lulav. All of these objects must be treated respectfully when they are used for a
mitzvah. But afterwards, they may be freely disposed of (covered and then thrown in the garbage). Their
holiness is only in force when they are a vehicle for a mitzvah. The holiness
of a tashmishmitzvah is out of respect for the mitzvah that was performed
with it.4

But there is a second, higher level, called tashmishkedushah. These are objects which have an
intrinsic holiness, as they are vessels for holy writings. This category includes
Tefillin, Sifrei Torah, and Mezuzot. It also includes articles that protect them, such as
covers for Sifrei Torah and Tefillin boxes. Unlike tashmisheimitzvah, these
objects may not be simply
disposed of when no longer used. They must be set aside (genizah) and subsequently buried.

For Ra’avad, the land under the Temple falls under the category of tashmishmitzvah.
It facilitated the
many mitzvot that were performed in the Temple. Without the Temple,
however, the area no longer retained its special kedushah. It became like an old Tallit,
no longer used to bear tzitzit.

Maimonides, on the other hand, categorized the Temple Mount as a tashmishkedushah.
This area was the location of the unique holiness of the Shekhinah, an eternal holiness.
Like a leather box that once contained Tefillin scrolls, even without the Temple
this area retains its special level of kedushah.

“Sanctified by My Honor”

All this, Rav Kook suggested, boils down to how to interpret the words “וְנִקְדַּשׁ בִּכְבֹדִי” —
“sanctified by My Honor” (Exod. 29:43). The Torah describes the holiness of the
Tabernacle — and later the Temple:

“There I will meet with the Israelites, and [that place] will be sanctified by My
Honor (Kevodi).”

What does the word Kevodi mean?

We could interpret Kevodi as referring to the honor (kavod) and
reverence that we give this special place.
The Tabernacle and Temple were deserving of special respect (like the mitzvah
of mora Mikdash). But without the Temple functioning, it
no longer retains its former kedushah — like the opinion of Ra’avad.

On the other hand, the word Kevodi could be understood as referring
to KevodHashem — the Shekhinah, God’s Divine Presence in the Temple
(see Rashi ad loc.). As the verse begins, “There I will meet with the Israelites.”
This would indicate an intrinsic holiness which is never lost — like the opinion of Maimonides.

In his Halakhic work MishpatKohen, Rav Kook explained our relationship to the place where
the Temple once stood:

“The Temple is the place of revelation of the Shekhinah, the place of our encounter with God.
We do not mention God’s holy Name outside the Temple due to
the profound holiness of His Name; so, too, we do not ascend the Mount nor approach the Holy
until we will be qualified to do so. And just as we draw closer to God by recognizing
the magnitude of our inability to grasp Him, so too, we draw
closer to the Mount precisely by distancing ourselves from it, in our awareness of
its great holiness.” (p. 204)

(Adapted from Igrot HaRe’iyah vol. III, letter 926)

Illustration image: James Tissot, ‘Reconstruction of the Temple of Herod Southeast Corner’ (between 1886 and 1894)

1Karet, literally “cutting off,” is a spiritual punishment for serious
transgressions. Karet can mean premature death, dying without children, or a spiritual
severing of the soul’s connection with God after death.

2Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Temple, 6:16

3 What would Ra’avad do with the Mishnah in Megillah that Maimonides quoted?
He could explain that this homiletic interpretation is only an asmakhta,
and reflects a prohibition of the Sages. Or the Mishnah could be referring to other laws, such as the
mitzvah of moraMikdash — the obligation to show respect and reverence to
the Temple area by not entering the Temple Mount with one’s staff, shoes, or money belt;
by not sitting in the Temple courtyard; and so on.
(See Berakhot 54a; Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Temple, chapter 7).

We might have expected a reversal of positions — that Ra’avad would argue for its
eternal sanctity, given that Ra’avad was a Kabbalist, unlike Maimonides
the rationalist. Especially considering that Ra’avad explicitly notes
that his position is informed by inspired wisdom — “God confides in those who fear Him” (Psalms 25:14).

In fact, it could well be that Ra’avad’s opinion is based on his understanding of
the distinct spiritual status of each Temple. Solomon foresaw the higher
spiritual state of the Third Temple, so he intentionally limited the sanctity of the First
Temple. He conditioned its sanctity to expire with the Temple’s destruction, in order to
enable the future Temple to be established on a higher state of kedushah.

4 This is the explanation of Nachmanides, quoted by the Ran in Megillah, chapter 3.